May 012024
 


Conservatism is being promoted as a Christian political philosophy that should be applied to the governing of a country. That, at least, was the expressed opinion of David Haskell (Wilfred Laurier University) during his recent debate with Bruce Pardy (Queen’s Law).

Sponsored by Augustine College and First Freedoms Foundation, the 2024 Rand Debate (named after Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand), was based on the following resolution: “Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty.”

In addition to the resolution itself being based on a contradiction (pitting “virtue” against “liberty” when in fact they are inseparable), the debate serves as an ideal exhibit of what we have been referring to as the “political dyslexia” persistently surrounding political debates and discussions.

Most disturbing is the Christian ‘virtue signaling’ now literally being advocated as a political response to the politics of WOKE virtue signaling.

David Haskell argues that through the power of the state, “conservatism as guided by the Judeo-Christian tradition is going to make choices you don’t agree with, especially if you’re not a religious believer.” Bruce Pardy, in response, notes that “this is why so many progressives think that conservatives are dangerous.”

Given Haskell’s subjective definitions of words like ‘liberal’, ‘virtue’, ‘equality’, ‘utilitarian’, and many others including ‘conservatism’ itself, Haskell and Pardy could never have arrived at anything resembling agreement. This creates a deep and unnecessary divide between those fighting for ‘liberty’ and those fighting for ‘conservatism’ in their mutual war against ‘Wokeism.’

Until more people who regard themselves as ‘conservatives’ begin to use definitions that are Just Right, their proposed solutions for defeating the WOKE ideology, let alone for achieving freedom, will always be just wrong and ineffective.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

857 – Political dyslexia—causes and cures

 Comments Off on 857 – Political dyslexia—causes and cures
Apr 242024
 


The disdain and revulsion that many people have developed for politics is understandable. But a growing danger emanating from this attitude is the inability to conceive of any political solutions to our freedom dilemma, and to withdraw from the political process entirely.

This is particularly tragic for those on the political Right – the polarity of individualism, freedom, and capitalism – because most people who believe in these values have demonstrated little interest in politics. And to the extent that they do participate in the political process, they more often than not continue to support and vote for parties and candidates opposed to their values.

Most voters are so confused about politics that they still cannot tell Left from Right, a condition perhaps best described as political dyslexia.

In fact, the prevailing myth is that there is no difference between Left and Right, based on the mistaken assumption that political parties like Canada’s Conservative Party and America’s Republican Party are on the ‘Right’ when they are actually as Leftist as their liberal and democratic counterparts.

Consider the political awakening of Rosanne Barr who, in a recent discussion with Russell Brand, described her 2012 candidacy for president as leader of the Green Party as “socialist.” Remarkably, she associated “freedom of speech, civil rights, self improvement through education, and individual rights” with socialism and the Left. Continue reading »

856 – ATHEISNT—Fallacies And Realities About Atheists

 Comments Off on 856 – ATHEISNT—Fallacies And Realities About Atheists
Apr 172024
 


Atheist Richard Dawkins recently sparked a controversy that challenges fundamental assumptions about both atheism and faith-based belief. Referring to himself as a “cultural Christian” he has been criticized by both atheists and religious believers alike.

Unfortunately, too many self-described atheists are being unfairly criticized and maligned by those who, on the one side, equate atheism with an absence of morality, while on the other equate the sharing of some religious beliefs with unprincipled atheism.

One dictionary we consulted incorrectly defines ‘atheism’ as “the belief that there is no god.” The problem with this definition is that atheism is not a ‘belief’ system at all. Nor is atheism a philosophy or code of morality. It is merely the non-acceptance or a rejection of the concept of a literal supernatural ‘deity’ – nothing else. Atheism does not require ‘belief’ as its base of justification. Atheism is primarily a response to theism, which does rely on ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’

The fact that many atheists abide by a moral code that mirrors that associated with Christianity is less about atheists borrowing from Christian values than it is about Christians and atheists alike borrowing values from other shared philosophical sources. This includes many writers and philosophers throughout history setting out the principles of Western culture over time – from the early Greeks through the Age of Enlightenment and to the present day.

Those who blame atheism as being the source of our current tyrannical zeitgeist – or who blame the Soviet Union’s past tyrannical history on its ‘officially atheist status’ are arguing a contradiction. One cannot judge any individual or national actions on what is ‘not’ believed and practiced but on what ‘is’ believed and practiced. In both cases, the cause of the tyranny was (and is) the ideology of collectivism.

Today’s WOKE ideology is merely the latest label given to yesterday’s Marxist ideology – and religious affiliation or lack thereof has little to do with the support of such ideologies. The same principle holds true for freedom.

Whether atheist or religious, if one accepts and respects the principles of individualism, individual rights and freedom, then it is possible for people of every belief and non-belief to share the ideals and blessings of a society that’s Just Right, with the understanding that freedom of religion also includes the right to be free from religion.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

855 – Do you mind?—thinking about thinking

 Comments Off on 855 – Do you mind?—thinking about thinking
Apr 102024
 


There has recently been a growing concern and much discussion about why so many people are still not awake, but just remain WOKE in the face of a pending civilizational collapse. “The WOKE mind virus is the greatest existential threat faced by humanity,” concludes Gad Saad, and Elon Musk apparently shares his alarm.

Among other causes cited for this sad state of affairs are the inability to have an inner monologue, the effect of the Covid spike protein, fear mongering, bacteria, chronic infection, the fake news media, intelligence guided by irrational bias, and of course the WOKE ideology, to name but a few.

Missing from most of the discussions is the ‘means’ by which people actually think: through the use of concepts and language. Because the human mind is essentially ‘programmable,’ and because words and concepts are the ‘software’ on which each mind functions, humans in the exercise of free will have the capacity and choice to think and behave either rationally or irrationally.

An irrational concept is one that does not conform to reality or reason. And significantly, irrational concepts can be held by highly intelligent people. How is this possible? Continue reading »

852 – Primacy—consciousness or existence?

 Comments Off on 852 – Primacy—consciousness or existence?
Mar 202024
 


“In politics, perception is reality, the truth doesn’t matter.”

Given the broad acceptance of this view of politics, it should not be surprising that so many good people see politics as an evil. They thus avoid getting involved in a process that affects everyone’s life whether they are interested in politics or not.

But this viewpoint is itself a form of political propaganda because in reality the truth does indeed matter in politics, so much so that political interests which are not aligned with truth go to such great lengths to hide and/or misrepresent the truth. Those political views are broadly identified as coming from the Left, which represents many variants of collectivism.

For those on the Right (which represents individualism, freedom, and capitalism), the current state of politics has become so irrational and beyond understanding that it is almost impossible to accept that the tyranny we are experiencing is real. “Everything is upside down or totally backwards,” has become a familiar refrain expressing this frustration and disbelief.

To understand the madness of the political Left, it is necessary to know how those on the Left think. One of the most difficult concepts to grasp is that those on the Left are strictly ideological, not philosophical. Ideology originates strictly in the mind, unconcerned with the facts of reality. A working philosophy on the other hand, is disciplined by the facts of reality.

In philosophy, these two opposing ways of thinking are contrasted as the ‘primacy of consciousness’ (in which reality is not perceived by consciousness but is created by consciousness) and the ‘primacy of existence’ (in which reality exists irrespective of anyone’s consciousness).

In politics, it is the Left that relies on ideology, while the Right relies on philosophical principles.

Consequently, this conflict between Left and Right manifests itself in a battle of definitions and concepts, ranging from the definition of freedom to the definition of democracy. While those on the Left are obsessed with “defending democracy,” many on the Right insist that freedom is the primary value to be defended.

While freedom is indeed the primary value, the surprising truth is that freedom and democracy go hand-in-hand.

Unfortunately, even when the truth is told, most people cannot recognize it or distinguish it from all of the false perceptions about politics. To be understood in a light that is Just Right, truth must be discerned; it requires a process of thought and discipline that too few understand: philosophy.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

850 – The spoken to—Censorship’s true target

 Comments Off on 850 – The spoken to—Censorship’s true target
Mar 062024
 


Once again, Canada’s politicians are on the ‘banning hate speech’ bandwagon, this time in the guise of a piece of legislation being introduced into parliament as Bill C-63.

The proposals contained in Bill C-63 are so bizarre and outrageous that most would dismiss them outright. Like something out of a science-fiction horror fantasy, the bill allows the government to convict, fine, and imprison ‘for life’ people who have not committed any speech offense, but who may do so in the future. Seriously.

How are such people to be identified? Through a ‘complaint’ system in which the identity of the complainant is kept a secret. The complainant can be anyone. As explained by Ezra Levant, “a person may lay an information if he fears that another person will commit a speech offense in the future.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of Bill C-63’s unconscionable and immoral proposals.

But more frightening than the contents of the bill itself are the people who would even allow themselves to entertain such evil. Former Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, who drafted the law, has announced that the government also has a “nuclear option” by being able to make it impossible to access any specific website in the country.

The Trudeau government’s obsession with regulating and censoring the internet suggests that he and his government greatly fear the truth. Truth is, after all, what is being eliminated from any allowable public discussion.

The real immorality of censorship is not just in the fact that it violates the fundamental right of someone to speak freely (which it does) but also because it violates the fundamental rights of those who wish to hear and listen freely. Censorship is less about the speaker than it is about the ‘spoken to’. The speaker is already in possession of the truth; the ‘spoken to’ may not be aware of the truth, and that’s how the politicians of the Left want to keep it.

Given that the Left is always unable to defend its ideology on intellectual or moral grounds, censorship is a great way to avoid that responsibility: “When persuasion fails, just use force.” Censorship is the perfect weapon of violence for those consumed with irrational hatreds that they do not wish to have exposed.

This should not be surprising because when it comes to ‘hate,’ the Left hates individualism, freedom, free speech, private property rights, justice, capitalism, and anybody or anything that is Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

849 – Applied philosophy—the practicality of freedom

 Comments Off on 849 – Applied philosophy—the practicality of freedom
Feb 282024
 


In their struggle against tyranny, many dismiss ‘philosophy’ while calling for ‘practical’ solutions to a condition that is wholly the consequence of ideas – and ideology. Given that the predominant zeitgeist of today’s culture is primarily on the Left, it should not be surprising that the field of philosophy has been largely discredited and dismissed as a failed subjective approach to the problems and challenges of life. However, this is a tragic error.

Reality dictates that one cannot possibly separate the philosophical from the practical without encountering a contradiction. If the ‘theory’ does not match the ‘practice’ then the ‘theory’ is no longer valid and cannot be regarded as such. The proper response is not to dismiss all ‘theory’ out of hand, but to formulate a theory that does indeed match the practice.

In the fields of ethics and politics, ‘theory’ is often equated with ‘philosophy’ or ‘ideology.’ Each of these terms is properly associated with modes of thinking that lead to certain intended outcomes or results.

So why do so many applied ‘theories’ fail to result in their intended outcomes? For a simple reason: the ‘theories’ are based on a mode of thinking philosophically referred to as the “primacy of consciousness” which stands in direct opposition to the “primacy of existence.” Continue reading »